SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   General Development (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=86)
-   -   CHICAGO | General Developments (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=105764)

the urban politician Apr 24, 2007 2:58 PM

The part I'm a bit excited about is in bold:

http://www.globest.com/news/891_891/.../160031-1.html
Four 50-Story Apartment Towers Trade for $470M
By Gina Kenny Email this story | Printer-friendly | Reprints

Presidential Towers(Read more on the multifamily market.)
CHICAGO-Waterton Residential, an affiliate of Chicago-based Waterton Associates LLC, has purchased the Presidential Tower apartment complex from the Pritzker family. The four 50-story apartment towers are located on a 5.8-acre lot surrounded by Madison, Des Plaines, Monroe and Clinton streets. Waterton purchased the property for approximately $470 million, says Mark Stern, senior vice president of acquisitions for Waterton. Stern said he could not disclose a cap rate.

The four towers have a total of 2,346 apartments with studio, convertible, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. About 7% of the units are currently vacant, Stern tells GlobeSt.com. The average rent for the apartments is $1,300 with an average size of 655 sf, Stern says. Approximately 10% of the units are furnished corporate rentals and guest suites.

The towers also have a five-story parking garage with 1,159 spaces and more than 100,000 sf of commercial space. There are a variety of retailers in the building including a 20,000-sf health club, salon, florist, dentist, grocery store, restaurants, dry cleaner and coffee shop. Potbelly’s Sandwich Shop recently signed a 10-year lease, Stern says. The lease was signed before the sale to Waterton, he says. Stern could not disclose the lease rate.
The apartment towers were completed in 1986. The Pritzker family gained control of the Presidential Towers when they were about to be foreclosed in 1995. The towers have not had significant improvements done to them since the building was constructed, Stern says. Renovations are planned to the apartment units such as upgrades to the flooring and lighting and new appliances and renovations to the bathrooms and kitchens. Stern would not disclose an estimate for the renovations. Renovations will also be done to the lobby and other common areas, the parking garage and the retail and commercial area.

“When Presidential Towers was built, it was really built as a self-contained village,” Stern says. Many of the retailers do not have street access. “Twenty years later, the West Loop has changed so much. We are going to come in and really open up the retail and make it more street friendly.”

The company also purchased two other properties in Chicago in the past year; 1 E. Delaware Place in Chicago, a 36-story apartment complex from Archstone in the city’s Gold Coast neighborhood at the corner of North State Street and East Delaware Street, and the 399-unit River North Park Apartments in Chicago in May 2006 from Archstone.

Marcu Apr 24, 2007 3:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brian_b (Post 2789256)
If the LaSalle sale to BoA goes through, I'll be moving my accounts elsewhere. I know other people that are going to do the same.

Jesus, anybody but BoA!

I just don't get it. When ABN, a Dutch bank, bought up Lasalle we were all complaining that those evil foreigners are coming in and buying up our assets, stealing our jobs, and killing our institutions. Now that an American bank wants to buy Lasalle from ABN, or make it "American" again if you will, we are again complaining. Is this just a matter of fearing what we don't know? Forgetfulness?

And to make things even more interesting, we are now begging a Scottish bank to come in and buy up Lasalle so that an American bank can't get it.

AJphx Apr 24, 2007 5:37 PM

oh well, I guess I was wrong about LaSalle (post from pages back). Although its mainly due to ABN AMRO being bought.

BofA will completely merge LaSalle. But there is still a chance for LaSalle to remain independent and hq'ed in Chicago if Royal Bank of Scotland bids for it and wins. However, RBS already owns a US bank, Citizen's Bank based in Providence. So it would still be a chance that LaSalle would be merged under Citizens, but it could also be the other way around with LaSalle remaining, or they both remain seperate.

AJphx Apr 24, 2007 6:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcu (Post 2790660)
I just don't get it. When ABN, a Dutch bank, bought up Lasalle we were all complaining that those evil foreigners are coming in and buying up our assets, stealing our jobs, and killing our institutions. Now that an American bank wants to buy Lasalle from ABN, or make it "American" again if you will, we are again complaining. Is this just a matter of fearing what we don't know? Forgetfulness?

And to make things even more interesting, we are now begging a Scottish bank to come in and buy up Lasalle so that an American bank can't get it.

No. And what you said has nothing at all to do with the real issue.

First, considering that was ABN bought LaSalle in 1979, I doubt many people in this forum even had an opinion or knowledge of it then, so it is irrelevant. If they did, it certainly wasn't because "foreigners" were buying it, but because Chicago was losing a local, independent bank.

What people want is whats good for Chicago. Which would be LaSalle, independent, with its hq in Chicago, (which is better for Chicago's economy) and the local connection that brings civic investment. Under ABN/AMRO, thats how it operated as an indirect subsidiary. It wasn't renamed or merged, it remained independent as the US operations.

Under BofA, LaSalle will be entirely merged, chicago will lose the corporate heaquarters, and will lose much of the LaSalle civic contributions. However, if LaSalle is taken by Royal Bank of Scotland instead, there remains a chance for it to stay an independent Chicago bank like it was under ABN-AMRO before. (and possibly become an even larger bank if RBS's US bank, Citizens, is merged into it)

That is it, simply enough. There is no American-foreign issue here or whatever else you may be trying to imply.

Alliance Apr 24, 2007 11:00 PM

Wait, so now I am confused. Is there actually a bid war between BofA and RBS? I thought the BofA merger was just short of official.

brian_b Apr 25, 2007 12:49 AM

^^^

It has nothing to do with nationality and everything to do with me not liking BoA.

sentinel Apr 25, 2007 1:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alliance (Post 2791887)
Wait, so now I am confused. Is there actually a bid war between BofA and RBS? I thought the BofA merger was just short of official.

It's not a done deal just yet, because the Royal Bank of Scotland was ready to buy it out (which would then have expanded their Chicago Charter One operations) but the Barclay's/BofA deal swept in and (perhaps prematurely) announced that their deal was approved which is not true because there is still a lot of share-holder, Board in-fighting, a very tangled web AND the fact that it would also need to have regulatory approval as well if and only if the Barclay's deal is approved by by all of ABN and their board, and I believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland will definitely put up a fight for this, they won't let this pass so easily into Barclay's hands.

Alliance Apr 25, 2007 3:44 AM

Excellent. GO RBS!

hoju Apr 25, 2007 4:38 AM

According to Crain's, an RBS takeover would be even worse in terms of bloodletting of chicago area jobs because the price paid would be that much higher to beat the B of A bid. I am as emotionally invested as the rest of you when it comes to retention of our homegrown companies, but perhaps this is a fight we won't win no matter the owner. Besides, another article in the Trib made the point that the increased competition B of A would offer to Chicago area banking would mean good things for the former customers of LaSalle. Perhaps the trickle down benefit of easier access to money flow would be just as much a boon for the regional economy. I am not sure, but I am just hoping that B of A retains its civic commitments like sponsoring the marathon. I think they will feel compelled to do these things anyways, since they are trying to expand their footprint in Chicago, and civic involvement obviously grants one a favorable reputation in our town.

hoju Apr 25, 2007 5:21 AM

An article in the Chicago Reader about uproar over a zoning change for an 8-story proposal in bucktown. Browsing the comments, it doesn't seem like anyone bothered to ask what the big deal was about having an 8-story building near one of the busiest intersections in the city. Anyone familiar with this 8-story proposal for 1600 N Milwaukee?

http://blogs.chicagoreader.com/politics/

On April 17 voters in the 32nd Ward went to the polls to choose between incumbent Ted Matlak and challenger Scott Waguespack in the aldermanic runoff election.

The very next day a zoning lawyer sent letters to Bucktown residents letting them know of a zoning-change proposal that, if passed by the City Council, would allow a developer to build an eight-story, 51-unit mixed-use condo complex with 248 parking spaces on the 1600 North block of Milwaukee, just north of the Coyote Building. The condo complex would be one of the tallest buildings in the area and, as word spreads, residents are up in arms.

According to the notification sign posted at 1632 N. Milwaukee, the zoning-change application was filed on April 11, almost a full week before the election. Matlak ought to have known about it--as a matter of routine the zoning committee immediately notifies aldermen of proposals in their wards.

For his part, Michael Moran, cofounder of Preservation Chicago, doubts that the letter's timing was coincidental. "I believe they purposefully waited until after the election," says Moran. "If the zoning change surfaces before the election, it's going to be a big issue and Matlak has to take a stand."

One of the main reasons Matlak was even in a runoff was because voters were upset at him for not keeping them abreast of requested zoning changes until it was too late to mount an opposition, as happened with the Artful Dodger (PDF). If the announcement was indeed delayed purposely, it wasn't enough to help him: Matlak lost to Waguespack, with 49.26 percent of the vote to his 50.74 percent.

The letter was signed by Frederick Agustin, a partner of in the law firm of James Banks, one of the most prominent zoning lawyers in town and the nephew of 36th Ward alderman William Banks, chair of the zoning committee. According to Agustin's letter, the applicant is a company called 1600 North, Inc., located at 1000 N. Milwaukee.
Neither Matlak, his press spokeswoman, Rebekah Brooks, nor Agustin returned calls for comment.

Waguespack says he will ask alderman Banks to hold off on approving the change until the area's two leading organizations, the Bucktown Community Organization and the Wicker Park Committee, get to hold public hearings about it. "I haven't had a chance to see the proposed building; I just learned about it myself," says Waguespack. "I'd hope they wouldn't try to push it through."

There's at at least one council zoning committee and one full City Council meetings before Waguespack gets sworn in on May 21. After Matlack won, Waguespack told reporters "we took out the machine." In the next few weeks, we'll see if the machine gets in one last jab.

honte Apr 25, 2007 5:32 AM

^ Matlak, good riddance!

aaron38 Apr 25, 2007 1:16 PM

Fire Breaks out in Old Post Office Building
CHICAGO---- Fire broke out Tuesday in a ventilation system in the city's vacant former post office where a movie crew had been filming scenes for an upcoming ''Batman'' sequel, sending black smoke billowing.
District Fire Chief Jose Santiago said insulation inside the ''very old ventilation system'' caught fire shortly before 11:30 a.m., and had nothing to do with the filming. There were no injuries, he said.
''It looked a lot worse than it really was,'' Santiago said. The fire was contained to the 16th-floor ventilation shaft in the 17-story building, and most of the flames were extinguished by a sprinkler system, fire department officials said.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/3...042407.article


I don't know, my conspiracy meter just twitched a notch. A couple vacant Sullivan buildings burn down, and now there's a fire in the Post Office's "very old ventilation system". So now there's smoke and water damage, which would lend support for the demolition plan.

Maybe fans of the athletic club should keep an eye out on that building...

the urban politician Apr 25, 2007 1:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoju
51-unit mixed-use condo complex with 248 parking spaces

^ My interest in this project ended upon reading that.

More unnecessary parking in a city that seriously needs to rethink its way of getting around

aaron38 Apr 25, 2007 1:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the urban politician (Post 2793394)
More unnecessary parking in a city that seriously needs to rethink its way of getting around

It's 10 feet from an El station, and that's 5 spaces per unit! Yeah, that's crazy.

VivaLFuego Apr 25, 2007 2:05 PM

That parking ratio is absolute insanity. I wish at least some of those spaces (perhaps 150) would be sold as monthly park-n-ride spaces for the L).

"one of the tallest buildings in the area".....right, except for the even-taller coyote building next door!

alex1 Apr 25, 2007 3:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hoju (Post 2792985)
An article in the Chicago Reader about uproar over a zoning change for an 8-story proposal in bucktown.

8 story is completely in-scale for this neighborhood IMO (as long as it fits in snug at street level). The neighborhood has a need for more housing and higher density developments can do the two things us urban lovers crave (1) more street vitality and (2) support better services (stores, clubs, cafes, restaurants...).

Busy Bee Apr 25, 2007 3:37 PM

Quote:

It's 10 feet from an El station, and that's 5 spaces per unit! Yeah, that's crazy.
That sounds crazy because it may not be the case. I'm not sure we know enough about this proposal to know that there is not a public garage component here ala the garage at the Vic condos. If there is a public parking component than that would account for the absurd unit/parking space ratio. We'll see.

forumly_chgoman Apr 25, 2007 5:14 PM

^^^^Are there renders available for this 8 story building......the 248 parking I just have to think is in error....unless as someone else has mentioned maybe there is a parking garage attached

ANyhow...8 stories is not an unreasonable height at all along a busy commercial corridor such as Milwaukee........hell this area used to be just desolate

VivaLFuego Apr 25, 2007 5:59 PM

Hopefully we hear about the community meetings for the 8-story Bucktown project so some pro-density voices can be heard....WickerPark/Bucktown will soon be as bad at Hyde Park or Gold Coast in terms of entrenched NIMBYism with deep pockets.

hoju Apr 25, 2007 6:26 PM

I made a comment on the Reader website about the 8-story proposal and how it is perfectly in scale for a very busy and vibrant intersection. Here were some responses. Mostly the same veiled NIMBY bullshit:

My comment:
Can anyone tell me what is so bad about an 8 story building near one of the cities busiest and most vibrant intersections? We do live in a city that invented the skyscraper after all.

Reponses:
-Can you tell me what is so bad about delaying a zoning decision until the community has had an opportunity to review the proposed development and its impact on its neighbors and the traffic pattern at such a vibrant intersection?
-is there a lack of skyscrapers in Chicago? plenty of unsold units downtown, in extremely vibrant and busy areas and intersections.
contrary to the mantra of the developer/flipper crowd, we do NOT want to be like Manhattan in Chicago.

Some of you all should go comment on that board so there is some indication to these people that not everyone wants to live in a car-dependent suburb within the city.


All times are GMT. The time now is 7:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.